tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 25 22:58:53 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: "to-be" + <<-bogh>>

qa'vaj (

On Dec 24, 2007 2:34 PM, Alan Anderson <> wrote:

> The phrase "I who am the message sender" confuses me to begin with.
> There's no reason I can think of for a relative clause to be used
> with something as uniquely specific as "I".  I can only imagine
> someone saying it if they wanted to convey something in particular,
> but what that particular idea might be escapes me.

Some co-workers get together.  One derisively reads a message out loud,
unaware that the message sender is in the group.  After reading the message
he says "whoever sent that message is a real bonehead".  The sender could
say: "I who am the message sender disagree."

> Especially here,

??? I used it 'here' because it was self-referential to the thread topic.

Think of it this way:

Message 1: I'm trying to understand how "I who am" works in English blah
blah blah.

Response: "I who am" will likely never be used in any meaningful way.

Reply: "I who am the message sender disagree"

> If you think these two cases are similar, please do try translating
> the second phrase into Klingon.  I see at least one surprise waiting
> for you.
DIvI' Hol mu'tlheghvetlh vIghItlhDI' <<qech DaDelbogh vIQoch>> vIQub.

qo'lIj DachenmoHtaH

Back to archive top level